4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Simbach am Inn.
5.  In November 1994, the applicant pressed criminal charges against her father, alleging several acts of sexual assault and rape in the 1970s. The Office of the Prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation against the father. It also commissioned a psychological expert report on the credibility of the applicant. On 6 September 1995 the Office of the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, relying, inter alia, on the expert report, which had found several inconsistencies in the applicant’s account of events and which had come to the conclusion that doubt as to her credibility could not be excluded.
6.  In July 1995, the applicant requested compensation under the Damages for Victims of Acts of Violence Act (Gesetz über die Entschädigung für Opfer von Gewalttaten) (“the Act”). She claimed that she was suffering from the consequences of the acts committed by her father.
7.  On 16 January 1996 the Family Office dismissed the applicant’s request. It found that the allegations of the violent acts could not be confirmed with certainty and relied on the expert report which had been commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor.
8.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant lodged an administrative objection against the Family Office’s refusal, which was dismissed on 20 August 1996. On 5 September 1996 the applicant brought an action with the Bayreuth Social Court.
9.  On 5 July 1997 the Social Court commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s credibility. The Social Court sent reminders to the expert on 22 October 1997, 10 February 1998, 10 March 1998, 12 May 1998; on 25 June 1998 the Social Court sent a last reminder setting a deadline until 15 August 1998. On 2 March 1999 the Social Court received the expert report dated 4 November 1998, in which the expert concluded that the applicant’s statements were credible as far as the essence of her allegations was concerned. On the basis of this expert opinion, the Office of the Prosecutor decided to renew the investigations against the father.
10.  Because of the institution of investigations, the Social Court adjourned the proceedings on 21 May 1999 until the criminal investigations had been concluded. The Office of the Prosecutor commissioned a further expert report to explain the two previous expert reports, which had each come to a different conclusion. This expert report concluded that the plausibility of the applicant’s statements could no longer be ascertained with sufficient reliability. Consequently, the Office of the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation on 4 October 2000. The Chief Public Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s objection on 25 October 2000. During the criminal investigation, the Social Court on 9 December 1999, 16 March 2000, 11 September 2000 and 14 November 2000 requested a progress report from the Public Prosecutor’s office. Having been informed of the applicant’s waiver to file an appeal on 14 December 2000, the Social Court resumed the proceedings on 20 December 2000. On 27 March 2001 the Social Court continued its investigation into the facts.
11.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant’s counsel requested access to the case-file; the Social Court sent the file to counsel on 4 October 2001. On 28 February 2002 the applicant requested that two further witnesses be heard; on 8 May 2002 the Social Court informed the applicant that the reports of those two witnesses were already on the record.
12.  On 25 September 2002 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s claim without conducting an oral hearing. Relying on the two expert reports which had found that the applicant’s credibility could no longer be determined with sufficient reliability, it held that the applicant had failed to prove that there had been a violent act against her.
13.  On 18 October 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Social Court. On 30 January 2003 the Social Court of Appeal informed the parties that it appeared that the alleged violent acts had occurred prior to the coming into force of the Act. In such cases, according to the Act, the claim depended on whether applicants could demonstrate a 50% reduction in earning capacity as a result of the violent acts, and that they were indigent. In July 2003, the parties agreed that an expert report on the extent of the reduction in earning capacity be commissioned.
14.  On 26 November 2003 the expert submitted his report, in which he found that the applicant was suffering from, inter alia, a serious personality disorder of the borderline type, depression, and an eating disorder. However, the expert found that it was also likely that these disorders would have emerged without the alleged violent acts by her father. On 26 January 2004 the applicant objected to the expert report. On 16 August 2004 she requested that a new expert report be commissioned. On 15 September 2004 the Social Court of Appeal ordered the expert suggested by the applicant to file a report, yet the expert recused himself. On 19 November 2004 it ordered the applicant to name a new expert by 31 December 2004, which she did on 21 February 2005. On 24 May 2005 it announced a hearing for the 30 June 2005.
15.  On 30 June 2005 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the obviously particularly complex circumstances. Taking into account the various expert reports it held that the applicant had not demonstrated that her father had sexually abused her between 1971 and 1976. Moreover, the relevant expert report on the issue of reduction in earning capacity had found that it was not likely that her current disorders had been caused by the alleged violent acts. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 October 2005.
16.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, lodged a request for leave to appeal with the Federal Social Court, alleging, inter alia, that two relevant witnesses had not testified, that she had not been sufficiently heard, and that the decision of the Social Court of Appeal had been a surprise decision. On 20 March 2006 the Federal Social Court declared the request inadmissible as it had not been sufficiently substantiated. It observed that the applicant had failed to demonstrate in what particular way the testimony of the two witnesses would have been relevant and necessary for the issues in question.
17.  On or about 22 April 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, complaining about the social court proceedings and the criminal investigation. The Federal Constitutional Court severed the complaints, separating the social court proceedings from the criminal investigation.
18.  On 13 June 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint concerning the social court proceedings inadmissible; the decision was served on the applicant on 15 July 2006. It observed that the applicant had failed to comply with the principle of subsidiarity as she had not exhausted all effective remedies. In particular, she had failed to sufficiently substantiate her request with the Federal Social Court. It found that there was nothing to suggest that the Federal Social Court had set arbitrary or unreasonable requisites regarding the admissibility of the complaints. The Federal Constitutional Court noted that the applicant, represented by a lawyer, had specifically complained that the Federal Social Court should have taken evidence and reassessed it anew; she had thus failed to understand that the Federal Social Court was merely competent in respect of appeals on points of law.
19.  On 14 September 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the constitutional complaint concerning the criminal investigation, without providing any reasons.